On 10/19/2012 04:22 AM, Richard Biener wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 18, 2012 at 7:32 PM, Kenneth Zadeck> <zadeck@naturalbridge.com> wrote:>> This patch replaces all instances of INT_CST_LT and INT_CST_LT_UNSIGNED>> with>> the new functions tree_int_cst_lts_p and tree_int_cst_ltu_p. With the new>> implementation of int_cst these functions will be too big to do inline.> These new function names are extremely confusing given that we already> have tree_int_cst_lt which does the right thing based on the signedness> of the INTEGER_CST trees.>> The whole point of the macros was to be inlined and you break that. That is,> for example>> if (unsignedp && unsignedp0)> {> - min_gt = INT_CST_LT_UNSIGNED (primop1, minval);> - max_gt = INT_CST_LT_UNSIGNED (primop1, maxval);> - min_lt = INT_CST_LT_UNSIGNED (minval, primop1);> - max_lt = INT_CST_LT_UNSIGNED (maxval, primop1);> + min_gt = tree_int_cst_ltu_p (primop1, minval);> + max_gt = tree_int_cst_ltu_p (primop1, maxval);> + min_lt = tree_int_cst_ltu_p (minval, primop1);> + max_lt = tree_int_cst_ltu_p (maxval, primop1);> }> else> {> - min_gt = INT_CST_LT (primop1, minval);> - max_gt = INT_CST_LT (primop1, maxval);> - min_lt = INT_CST_LT (minval, primop1);> - max_lt = INT_CST_LT (maxval, primop1);> + min_gt = tree_int_cst_lts_p (primop1, minval);> ...>> could have just been>> min_gt = tree_int_cst_lt (primop1, minval);> ....>> without any sign check.>> So if you think you need to kill the inlined variants please use the existing> tree_int_cst_lt instead.
no, they could not have. tree_int_cst_lt uses the signedness of the
type to determine how to do the comparison. These two functions, as
the macros they replace, force the comparison to be done independent of
the signedness of the type.
I do not know why we need to do this. I am just applying a plug
compatible replacement here. I did not write this code, but I do not
think that i can just do as you say here.
Kenny
> Thanks,> Richard.>>> This is a small patch that has no prerequisites.>>>> Tested on x86-64.>>>> kenny

On Fri, Oct 19, 2012 at 12:59 PM, Kenneth Zadeck
<zadeck@naturalbridge.com> wrote:
>> On 10/19/2012 04:22 AM, Richard Biener wrote:>>>> On Thu, Oct 18, 2012 at 7:32 PM, Kenneth Zadeck>> <zadeck@naturalbridge.com> wrote:>>>>>> This patch replaces all instances of INT_CST_LT and INT_CST_LT_UNSIGNED>>> with>>> the new functions tree_int_cst_lts_p and tree_int_cst_ltu_p. With the>>> new>>> implementation of int_cst these functions will be too big to do inline.>>>> These new function names are extremely confusing given that we already>> have tree_int_cst_lt which does the right thing based on the signedness>> of the INTEGER_CST trees.>>>> The whole point of the macros was to be inlined and you break that. That>> is,>> for example>>>> if (unsignedp && unsignedp0)>> {>> - min_gt = INT_CST_LT_UNSIGNED (primop1, minval);>> - max_gt = INT_CST_LT_UNSIGNED (primop1, maxval);>> - min_lt = INT_CST_LT_UNSIGNED (minval, primop1);>> - max_lt = INT_CST_LT_UNSIGNED (maxval, primop1);>> + min_gt = tree_int_cst_ltu_p (primop1, minval);>> + max_gt = tree_int_cst_ltu_p (primop1, maxval);>> + min_lt = tree_int_cst_ltu_p (minval, primop1);>> + max_lt = tree_int_cst_ltu_p (maxval, primop1);>> }>> else>> {>> - min_gt = INT_CST_LT (primop1, minval);>> - max_gt = INT_CST_LT (primop1, maxval);>> - min_lt = INT_CST_LT (minval, primop1);>> - max_lt = INT_CST_LT (maxval, primop1);>> + min_gt = tree_int_cst_lts_p (primop1, minval);>> ...>>>> could have just been>>>> min_gt = tree_int_cst_lt (primop1, minval);>> ....>>>> without any sign check.>>>> So if you think you need to kill the inlined variants please use the>> existing>> tree_int_cst_lt instead.>> no, they could not have. tree_int_cst_lt uses the signedness of the type> to determine how to do the comparison. These two functions, as the macros> they replace, force the comparison to be done independent of the signedness> of the type.
Well, looking at the surrounding code it's indeed non-obvious that this would
be a 1:1 transform. But then they should not compare _trees_ but instead
compare double-ints (or wide-ints).
That said, I still think having a tree_int_cst_lt[us]_p function is wrong.
tree INTEGER_CSTs have a sign. (apart from that opinion we have
tree_int_cst_lt and you introduce tree_int_cst_ltu_p - consistent
would be tree_int_cst_ltu).
> I do not know why we need to do this. I am just applying a plug compatible> replacement here. I did not write this code, but I do not think that i can> just do as you say here.
So use the double-int interface in the places you substituted your new
tree predicates. Yes, you'll have to touch that again when converting to
wide-int - but if those places really want to ignore the sign of the tree
they should not use a tree interface.
Richard.
> Kenny>>>> Thanks,>> Richard.>>>>> This is a small patch that has no prerequisites.>>>>>> Tested on x86-64.>>>>>> kenny>>

On 10/19/2012 07:13 AM, Richard Biener wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 19, 2012 at 12:59 PM, Kenneth Zadeck> <zadeck@naturalbridge.com> wrote:>> On 10/19/2012 04:22 AM, Richard Biener wrote:>>> On Thu, Oct 18, 2012 at 7:32 PM, Kenneth Zadeck>>> <zadeck@naturalbridge.com> wrote:>>>> This patch replaces all instances of INT_CST_LT and INT_CST_LT_UNSIGNED>>>> with>>>> the new functions tree_int_cst_lts_p and tree_int_cst_ltu_p. With the>>>> new>>>> implementation of int_cst these functions will be too big to do inline.>>> These new function names are extremely confusing given that we already>>> have tree_int_cst_lt which does the right thing based on the signedness>>> of the INTEGER_CST trees.>>>>>> The whole point of the macros was to be inlined and you break that. That>>> is,>>> for example>>>>>> if (unsignedp && unsignedp0)>>> {>>> - min_gt = INT_CST_LT_UNSIGNED (primop1, minval);>>> - max_gt = INT_CST_LT_UNSIGNED (primop1, maxval);>>> - min_lt = INT_CST_LT_UNSIGNED (minval, primop1);>>> - max_lt = INT_CST_LT_UNSIGNED (maxval, primop1);>>> + min_gt = tree_int_cst_ltu_p (primop1, minval);>>> + max_gt = tree_int_cst_ltu_p (primop1, maxval);>>> + min_lt = tree_int_cst_ltu_p (minval, primop1);>>> + max_lt = tree_int_cst_ltu_p (maxval, primop1);>>> }>>> else>>> {>>> - min_gt = INT_CST_LT (primop1, minval);>>> - max_gt = INT_CST_LT (primop1, maxval);>>> - min_lt = INT_CST_LT (minval, primop1);>>> - max_lt = INT_CST_LT (maxval, primop1);>>> + min_gt = tree_int_cst_lts_p (primop1, minval);>>> ...>>>>>> could have just been>>>>>> min_gt = tree_int_cst_lt (primop1, minval);>>> ....>>>>>> without any sign check.>>>>>> So if you think you need to kill the inlined variants please use the>>> existing>>> tree_int_cst_lt instead.>> no, they could not have. tree_int_cst_lt uses the signedness of the type>> to determine how to do the comparison. These two functions, as the macros>> they replace, force the comparison to be done independent of the signedness>> of the type.> Well, looking at the surrounding code it's indeed non-obvious that this would> be a 1:1 transform. But then they should not compare _trees_ but instead> compare double-ints (or wide-ints).>> That said, I still think having a tree_int_cst_lt[us]_p function is wrong.> tree INTEGER_CSTs have a sign. (apart from that opinion we have> tree_int_cst_lt and you introduce tree_int_cst_ltu_p - consistent> would be tree_int_cst_ltu).
This reply applies just as much to this patch as patch 6.
I morally agree with you 100%. But the code does not agree with you.
On patch 6, there are about 450 places where we want to take the lower
hwi worth of bits out of a int cst. Of those, only 5 places use the
function that allows the signedness to be passed in. The rest make the
signedness decision based on the local code and completely ignore any
information in the type. Of those 5 that do allow the signedness to
be passed in, only three of them actually pass it in based on the
signedness of the variable they are accessing.
I am sure that a lot of these are wrong. But i could not tell you which
are and which are not.
luckily, a lot of this will go away with the full wide-int code because
i just do most of this math in the full precision so the issue never
comes up. But after i am finished, there will still be a fair number
of places that do this. (luckily, a large number of them are pulling
the number out and comparing it to the precision of something, so this
is likely to be harmless no matter how the code is written).
But to a large extent, you are shooting the messenger here, and not
person who committed the crime. I will be happy to add some comments
to point the clients of these to the one that looks at the type. In
looking over the patch, the only obvious ones that could be changed are
the ones in tree-ssa-uninit.c and the tree-vrp.c. The one in tree-vrp.c
just looks like that the person writing the code did not know about
tree_int_cst_lt and wrote the check out our himself. (i will fix this
in the tree-vrp patch that i am working on now. The one in
tree-ssa-uniunit looks correct.
But beyond that, the rest are in the front ends and so i think that this
as good as you get out of me.
Kenny
>> I do not know why we need to do this. I am just applying a plug compatible>> replacement here. I did not write this code, but I do not think that i can>> just do as you say here.> So use the double-int interface in the places you substituted your new> tree predicates. Yes, you'll have to touch that again when converting to> wide-int - but if those places really want to ignore the sign of the tree> they should not use a tree interface.>> Richard.>>> Kenny>>>>>>> Thanks,>>> Richard.>>>>>>> This is a small patch that has no prerequisites.>>>>>>>> Tested on x86-64.>>>>>>>> kenny>>

On Fri, Oct 19, 2012 at 1:49 PM, Kenneth Zadeck
<zadeck@naturalbridge.com> wrote:
>> On 10/19/2012 07:13 AM, Richard Biener wrote:>>>> On Fri, Oct 19, 2012 at 12:59 PM, Kenneth Zadeck>> <zadeck@naturalbridge.com> wrote:>>>>>> On 10/19/2012 04:22 AM, Richard Biener wrote:>>>>>>>> On Thu, Oct 18, 2012 at 7:32 PM, Kenneth Zadeck>>>> <zadeck@naturalbridge.com> wrote:>>>>>>>>>> This patch replaces all instances of INT_CST_LT and>>>>> INT_CST_LT_UNSIGNED>>>>> with>>>>> the new functions tree_int_cst_lts_p and tree_int_cst_ltu_p. With the>>>>> new>>>>> implementation of int_cst these functions will be too big to do inline.>>>>>>>> These new function names are extremely confusing given that we already>>>> have tree_int_cst_lt which does the right thing based on the signedness>>>> of the INTEGER_CST trees.>>>>>>>> The whole point of the macros was to be inlined and you break that.>>>> That>>>> is,>>>> for example>>>>>>>> if (unsignedp && unsignedp0)>>>> {>>>> - min_gt = INT_CST_LT_UNSIGNED (primop1, minval);>>>> - max_gt = INT_CST_LT_UNSIGNED (primop1, maxval);>>>> - min_lt = INT_CST_LT_UNSIGNED (minval, primop1);>>>> - max_lt = INT_CST_LT_UNSIGNED (maxval, primop1);>>>> + min_gt = tree_int_cst_ltu_p (primop1, minval);>>>> + max_gt = tree_int_cst_ltu_p (primop1, maxval);>>>> + min_lt = tree_int_cst_ltu_p (minval, primop1);>>>> + max_lt = tree_int_cst_ltu_p (maxval, primop1);>>>> }>>>> else>>>> {>>>> - min_gt = INT_CST_LT (primop1, minval);>>>> - max_gt = INT_CST_LT (primop1, maxval);>>>> - min_lt = INT_CST_LT (minval, primop1);>>>> - max_lt = INT_CST_LT (maxval, primop1);>>>> + min_gt = tree_int_cst_lts_p (primop1, minval);>>>> ...>>>>>>>> could have just been>>>>>>>> min_gt = tree_int_cst_lt (primop1, minval);>>>> ....>>>>>>>> without any sign check.>>>>>>>> So if you think you need to kill the inlined variants please use the>>>> existing>>>> tree_int_cst_lt instead.>>>>>> no, they could not have. tree_int_cst_lt uses the signedness of the>>> type>>> to determine how to do the comparison. These two functions, as the>>> macros>>> they replace, force the comparison to be done independent of the>>> signedness>>> of the type.>>>> Well, looking at the surrounding code it's indeed non-obvious that this>> would>> be a 1:1 transform. But then they should not compare _trees_ but instead>> compare double-ints (or wide-ints).>>>> That said, I still think having a tree_int_cst_lt[us]_p function is wrong.>> tree INTEGER_CSTs have a sign. (apart from that opinion we have>> tree_int_cst_lt and you introduce tree_int_cst_ltu_p - consistent>> would be tree_int_cst_ltu).>> This reply applies just as much to this patch as patch 6.> I morally agree with you 100%. But the code does not agree with you.>> On patch 6, there are about 450 places where we want to take the lower hwi> worth of bits out of a int cst. Of those, only 5 places use the function> that allows the signedness to be passed in. The rest make the signedness> decision based on the local code and completely ignore any information in> the type. Of those 5 that do allow the signedness to be passed in, only> three of them actually pass it in based on the signedness of the variable> they are accessing.>> I am sure that a lot of these are wrong. But i could not tell you which are> and which are not.> luckily, a lot of this will go away with the full wide-int code because i> just do most of this math in the full precision so the issue never comes up.> But after i am finished, there will still be a fair number of places that do> this. (luckily, a large number of them are pulling the number out and> comparing it to the precision of something, so this is likely to be harmless> no matter how the code is written).>> But to a large extent, you are shooting the messenger here, and not person> who committed the crime. I will be happy to add some comments to point the> clients of these to the one that looks at the type. In looking over the> patch, the only obvious ones that could be changed are the ones in> tree-ssa-uninit.c and the tree-vrp.c. The one in tree-vrp.c just looks like> that the person writing the code did not know about tree_int_cst_lt and> wrote the check out our himself. (i will fix this in the tree-vrp patch> that i am working on now. The one in tree-ssa-uniunit looks correct.>> But beyond that, the rest are in the front ends and so i think that this as> good as you get out of me.
Well, if you transform bogus (by moral standards) code into other
bogus code the whole point of your patch is to exchange the names
of a set of macros / functions to another set of macros / functions.
I see no point in that then.
Leave broken code as-is. The more often you touch broken code
and just mangle it in some way the harder it gets to get to the
point that would maybe reveal the real intent of the original code.
Sorry for the harsh words, but to take the example of
INT_CST_LT and INT_CST_LT_UNSIGNED -- those are remanents of
a world before double_ints existed. All uses should have been
replaced by double_int usage by now; replacing them with something
tree-ish is the wrong way. It might be the correct way if the tree
operands have the correct signedness - in which case we already
have tree_int_cst_lt for the task. tree_int_cst_lt[us] is a perversion
(that is, wrong when viewed in isolation)!
Richard.
> Kenny>>>>> I do not know why we need to do this. I am just applying a plug>>> compatible>>> replacement here. I did not write this code, but I do not think that i>>> can>>> just do as you say here.>>>> So use the double-int interface in the places you substituted your new>> tree predicates. Yes, you'll have to touch that again when converting to>> wide-int - but if those places really want to ignore the sign of the tree>> they should not use a tree interface.>>>> Richard.>>>>> Kenny>>>>>>>>>> Thanks,>>>> Richard.>>>>>>>>> This is a small patch that has no prerequisites.>>>>>>>>>> Tested on x86-64.>>>>>>>>>> kenny>>>>>>>

On 10/19/2012 07:58 AM, Richard Biener wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 19, 2012 at 1:49 PM, Kenneth Zadeck> <zadeck@naturalbridge.com> wrote:>> On 10/19/2012 07:13 AM, Richard Biener wrote:>>> On Fri, Oct 19, 2012 at 12:59 PM, Kenneth Zadeck>>> <zadeck@naturalbridge.com> wrote:>>>> On 10/19/2012 04:22 AM, Richard Biener wrote:>>>>> On Thu, Oct 18, 2012 at 7:32 PM, Kenneth Zadeck>>>>> <zadeck@naturalbridge.com> wrote:>>>>>> This patch replaces all instances of INT_CST_LT and>>>>>> INT_CST_LT_UNSIGNED>>>>>> with>>>>>> the new functions tree_int_cst_lts_p and tree_int_cst_ltu_p. With the>>>>>> new>>>>>> implementation of int_cst these functions will be too big to do inline.>>>>> These new function names are extremely confusing given that we already>>>>> have tree_int_cst_lt which does the right thing based on the signedness>>>>> of the INTEGER_CST trees.>>>>>>>>>> The whole point of the macros was to be inlined and you break that.>>>>> That>>>>> is,>>>>> for example>>>>>>>>>> if (unsignedp && unsignedp0)>>>>> {>>>>> - min_gt = INT_CST_LT_UNSIGNED (primop1, minval);>>>>> - max_gt = INT_CST_LT_UNSIGNED (primop1, maxval);>>>>> - min_lt = INT_CST_LT_UNSIGNED (minval, primop1);>>>>> - max_lt = INT_CST_LT_UNSIGNED (maxval, primop1);>>>>> + min_gt = tree_int_cst_ltu_p (primop1, minval);>>>>> + max_gt = tree_int_cst_ltu_p (primop1, maxval);>>>>> + min_lt = tree_int_cst_ltu_p (minval, primop1);>>>>> + max_lt = tree_int_cst_ltu_p (maxval, primop1);>>>>> }>>>>> else>>>>> {>>>>> - min_gt = INT_CST_LT (primop1, minval);>>>>> - max_gt = INT_CST_LT (primop1, maxval);>>>>> - min_lt = INT_CST_LT (minval, primop1);>>>>> - max_lt = INT_CST_LT (maxval, primop1);>>>>> + min_gt = tree_int_cst_lts_p (primop1, minval);>>>>> ...>>>>>>>>>> could have just been>>>>>>>>>> min_gt = tree_int_cst_lt (primop1, minval);>>>>> ....>>>>>>>>>> without any sign check.>>>>>>>>>> So if you think you need to kill the inlined variants please use the>>>>> existing>>>>> tree_int_cst_lt instead.>>>> no, they could not have. tree_int_cst_lt uses the signedness of the>>>> type>>>> to determine how to do the comparison. These two functions, as the>>>> macros>>>> they replace, force the comparison to be done independent of the>>>> signedness>>>> of the type.>>> Well, looking at the surrounding code it's indeed non-obvious that this>>> would>>> be a 1:1 transform. But then they should not compare _trees_ but instead>>> compare double-ints (or wide-ints).>>>>>> That said, I still think having a tree_int_cst_lt[us]_p function is wrong.>>> tree INTEGER_CSTs have a sign. (apart from that opinion we have>>> tree_int_cst_lt and you introduce tree_int_cst_ltu_p - consistent>>> would be tree_int_cst_ltu).>> This reply applies just as much to this patch as patch 6.>> I morally agree with you 100%. But the code does not agree with you.>>>> On patch 6, there are about 450 places where we want to take the lower hwi>> worth of bits out of a int cst. Of those, only 5 places use the function>> that allows the signedness to be passed in. The rest make the signedness>> decision based on the local code and completely ignore any information in>> the type. Of those 5 that do allow the signedness to be passed in, only>> three of them actually pass it in based on the signedness of the variable>> they are accessing.>>>> I am sure that a lot of these are wrong. But i could not tell you which are>> and which are not.>> luckily, a lot of this will go away with the full wide-int code because i>> just do most of this math in the full precision so the issue never comes up.>> But after i am finished, there will still be a fair number of places that do>> this. (luckily, a large number of them are pulling the number out and>> comparing it to the precision of something, so this is likely to be harmless>> no matter how the code is written).>>>> But to a large extent, you are shooting the messenger here, and not person>> who committed the crime. I will be happy to add some comments to point the>> clients of these to the one that looks at the type. In looking over the>> patch, the only obvious ones that could be changed are the ones in>> tree-ssa-uninit.c and the tree-vrp.c. The one in tree-vrp.c just looks like>> that the person writing the code did not know about tree_int_cst_lt and>> wrote the check out our himself. (i will fix this in the tree-vrp patch>> that i am working on now. The one in tree-ssa-uniunit looks correct.>>>> But beyond that, the rest are in the front ends and so i think that this as>> good as you get out of me.> Well, if you transform bogus (by moral standards) code into other> bogus code the whole point of your patch is to exchange the names> of a set of macros / functions to another set of macros / functions.>> I see no point in that then.>> Leave broken code as-is. The more often you touch broken code> and just mangle it in some way the harder it gets to get to the> point that would maybe reveal the real intent of the original code.>> Sorry for the harsh words, but to take the example of> INT_CST_LT and INT_CST_LT_UNSIGNED -- those are remanents of> a world before double_ints existed. All uses should have been> replaced by double_int usage by now; replacing them with something> tree-ish is the wrong way. It might be the correct way if the tree> operands have the correct signedness - in which case we already> have tree_int_cst_lt for the task. tree_int_cst_lt[us] is a perversion> (that is, wrong when viewed in isolation)!
i do not know if this code is bogus. i am not a front end person.
i just need the macros to go away. And the conventions of the gcc
say that we do not put real functions with upper case names.
i can of course, convert these to use wide-int and then use the
wide_int::lts_p and ::ltu_p but that is just going to sweep the issue
under the rug. It does not get rid of the issue that in your mind
these comparisons should be using the signedness of the constants them
selves.
Kenny
> Richard.>>> Kenny>>>>>>>> I do not know why we need to do this. I am just applying a plug>>>> compatible>>>> replacement here. I did not write this code, but I do not think that i>>>> can>>>> just do as you say here.>>> So use the double-int interface in the places you substituted your new>>> tree predicates. Yes, you'll have to touch that again when converting to>>> wide-int - but if those places really want to ignore the sign of the tree>>> they should not use a tree interface.>>>>>> Richard.>>>>>>> Kenny>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks,>>>>> Richard.>>>>>>>>>>> This is a small patch that has no prerequisites.>>>>>>>>>>>> Tested on x86-64.>>>>>>>>>>>> kenny>>>>

On Fri, Oct 19, 2012 at 2:12 PM, Kenneth Zadeck
<zadeck@naturalbridge.com> wrote:
>> On 10/19/2012 07:58 AM, Richard Biener wrote:>>>> On Fri, Oct 19, 2012 at 1:49 PM, Kenneth Zadeck>> <zadeck@naturalbridge.com> wrote:>>>>>> On 10/19/2012 07:13 AM, Richard Biener wrote:>>>>>>>> On Fri, Oct 19, 2012 at 12:59 PM, Kenneth Zadeck>>>> <zadeck@naturalbridge.com> wrote:>>>>>>>>>> On 10/19/2012 04:22 AM, Richard Biener wrote:>>>>>>>>>>>> On Thu, Oct 18, 2012 at 7:32 PM, Kenneth Zadeck>>>>>> <zadeck@naturalbridge.com> wrote:>>>>>>>>>>>>>> This patch replaces all instances of INT_CST_LT and>>>>>>> INT_CST_LT_UNSIGNED>>>>>>> with>>>>>>> the new functions tree_int_cst_lts_p and tree_int_cst_ltu_p. With>>>>>>> the>>>>>>> new>>>>>>> implementation of int_cst these functions will be too big to do>>>>>>> inline.>>>>>>>>>>>> These new function names are extremely confusing given that we already>>>>>> have tree_int_cst_lt which does the right thing based on the>>>>>> signedness>>>>>> of the INTEGER_CST trees.>>>>>>>>>>>> The whole point of the macros was to be inlined and you break that.>>>>>> That>>>>>> is,>>>>>> for example>>>>>>>>>>>> if (unsignedp && unsignedp0)>>>>>> {>>>>>> - min_gt = INT_CST_LT_UNSIGNED (primop1, minval);>>>>>> - max_gt = INT_CST_LT_UNSIGNED (primop1, maxval);>>>>>> - min_lt = INT_CST_LT_UNSIGNED (minval, primop1);>>>>>> - max_lt = INT_CST_LT_UNSIGNED (maxval, primop1);>>>>>> + min_gt = tree_int_cst_ltu_p (primop1, minval);>>>>>> + max_gt = tree_int_cst_ltu_p (primop1, maxval);>>>>>> + min_lt = tree_int_cst_ltu_p (minval, primop1);>>>>>> + max_lt = tree_int_cst_ltu_p (maxval, primop1);>>>>>> }>>>>>> else>>>>>> {>>>>>> - min_gt = INT_CST_LT (primop1, minval);>>>>>> - max_gt = INT_CST_LT (primop1, maxval);>>>>>> - min_lt = INT_CST_LT (minval, primop1);>>>>>> - max_lt = INT_CST_LT (maxval, primop1);>>>>>> + min_gt = tree_int_cst_lts_p (primop1, minval);>>>>>> ...>>>>>>>>>>>> could have just been>>>>>>>>>>>> min_gt = tree_int_cst_lt (primop1, minval);>>>>>> ....>>>>>>>>>>>> without any sign check.>>>>>>>>>>>> So if you think you need to kill the inlined variants please use the>>>>>> existing>>>>>> tree_int_cst_lt instead.>>>>>>>>>> no, they could not have. tree_int_cst_lt uses the signedness of the>>>>> type>>>>> to determine how to do the comparison. These two functions, as the>>>>> macros>>>>> they replace, force the comparison to be done independent of the>>>>> signedness>>>>> of the type.>>>>>>>> Well, looking at the surrounding code it's indeed non-obvious that this>>>> would>>>> be a 1:1 transform. But then they should not compare _trees_ but>>>> instead>>>> compare double-ints (or wide-ints).>>>>>>>> That said, I still think having a tree_int_cst_lt[us]_p function is>>>> wrong.>>>> tree INTEGER_CSTs have a sign. (apart from that opinion we have>>>> tree_int_cst_lt and you introduce tree_int_cst_ltu_p - consistent>>>> would be tree_int_cst_ltu).>>>>>> This reply applies just as much to this patch as patch 6.>>> I morally agree with you 100%. But the code does not agree with you.>>>>>> On patch 6, there are about 450 places where we want to take the lower>>> hwi>>> worth of bits out of a int cst. Of those, only 5 places use the>>> function>>> that allows the signedness to be passed in. The rest make the>>> signedness>>> decision based on the local code and completely ignore any information in>>> the type. Of those 5 that do allow the signedness to be passed in,>>> only>>> three of them actually pass it in based on the signedness of the variable>>> they are accessing.>>>>>> I am sure that a lot of these are wrong. But i could not tell you which>>> are>>> and which are not.>>> luckily, a lot of this will go away with the full wide-int code because i>>> just do most of this math in the full precision so the issue never comes>>> up.>>> But after i am finished, there will still be a fair number of places that>>> do>>> this. (luckily, a large number of them are pulling the number out and>>> comparing it to the precision of something, so this is likely to be>>> harmless>>> no matter how the code is written).>>>>>> But to a large extent, you are shooting the messenger here, and not>>> person>>> who committed the crime. I will be happy to add some comments to point>>> the>>> clients of these to the one that looks at the type. In looking over the>>> patch, the only obvious ones that could be changed are the ones in>>> tree-ssa-uninit.c and the tree-vrp.c. The one in tree-vrp.c just looks>>> like>>> that the person writing the code did not know about tree_int_cst_lt and>>> wrote the check out our himself. (i will fix this in the tree-vrp patch>>> that i am working on now. The one in tree-ssa-uniunit looks correct.>>>>>> But beyond that, the rest are in the front ends and so i think that this>>> as>>> good as you get out of me.>>>> Well, if you transform bogus (by moral standards) code into other>> bogus code the whole point of your patch is to exchange the names>> of a set of macros / functions to another set of macros / functions.>>>> I see no point in that then.>>>> Leave broken code as-is. The more often you touch broken code>> and just mangle it in some way the harder it gets to get to the>> point that would maybe reveal the real intent of the original code.>>>> Sorry for the harsh words, but to take the example of>> INT_CST_LT and INT_CST_LT_UNSIGNED -- those are remanents of>> a world before double_ints existed. All uses should have been>> replaced by double_int usage by now; replacing them with something>> tree-ish is the wrong way. It might be the correct way if the tree>> operands have the correct signedness - in which case we already>> have tree_int_cst_lt for the task. tree_int_cst_lt[us] is a perversion>> (that is, wrong when viewed in isolation)!>> i do not know if this code is bogus. i am not a front end person.> i just need the macros to go away. And the conventions of the gcc say> that we do not put real functions with upper case names.>> i can of course, convert these to use wide-int and then use the> wide_int::lts_p and ::ltu_p but that is just going to sweep the issue under> the rug. It does not get rid of the issue that in your mind these> comparisons should be using the signedness of the constants them selves.
But it doesn't end up introducing bogus tree_int_cst_lt[us]. That's the
whole point. Thus, using wide_int::lt[us]_p is fine with me (or
double_int::lt[us]_p
in the mean time if you care to get rid of the macros now).
Richard.
> Kenny>>> Richard.>>>>> Kenny>>>>>>>>>>> I do not know why we need to do this. I am just applying a plug>>>>> compatible>>>>> replacement here. I did not write this code, but I do not think that i>>>>> can>>>>> just do as you say here.>>>>>>>> So use the double-int interface in the places you substituted your new>>>> tree predicates. Yes, you'll have to touch that again when converting>>>> to>>>> wide-int - but if those places really want to ignore the sign of the>>>> tree>>>> they should not use a tree interface.>>>>>>>> Richard.>>>>>>>>> Kenny>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks,>>>>>> Richard.>>>>>>>>>>>>> This is a small patch that has no prerequisites.>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Tested on x86-64.>>>>>>>>>>>>>> kenny>>>>>>>>>>>